February 23, 2010

Here's Star Parker's weekly column. Hope you can take the time to read it.

Time for a new generation of Black Americans

Studies show that it's family and education that produces success in America. Income correlates with education and education correlates with family background

Star Parker, founder and president of CURE

Black History Month 2010 is not a great time for a party. Unemployment at almost 10%, and well over 16% among blacks, doesn't make for much of a festive mood.

But if the mood is not festive, shouldn't it be reflective?

Certainly, there's reason for pride in black achievement in the forty plus years since the Civil Rights movement. We've now got a couple black billionaires and a black president. The percentage of blacks with college degrees is three times greater now than in 1970.

But black household income is still just 62% of white households. And the black poverty rate, at twice the national average, has hardly budged since the late 1960's.

Blacks should be asking hard questions when, over this period of time, many immigrants from different backgrounds have come to this country with little and moved into the middle class in one generation.

The accumulation of considerable black political power  black mayors, governors, a 42 member Black Congressional Caucus, and now a black president - has made hardly a difference. It should be clear that black economic distress is not a political problem.

Studies show that it's family and education that produces success in America. Income correlates with education and education correlates with family background.

Now consider that in 1970, 62% of black women were married compared to 33% today. In 1970, 74% of black men were married, compared to 44% today.

Or that in 1970, 5% of black mothers were never married compared to 41% today.

The Civil Rights movement was, of course, a religiously inspired and led movement. It made liberal use of the biblical imagery of the Exodus of the Israelite slaves from Egypt.

Taylor Branch called his trilogy about Dr. King and the movement he led "Parting of the Waters", "Pillar of Fire", and "At Canaan's Edge."

To the misfortune of blacks who put great hope in the redemptive powers of that movement, their leaders prematurely closed their bibles.

The story of the liberation of the Israelite slaves did not end with their release from their Egyptian taskmasters. That was the beginning. They then proceeded to the mountain in the wilderness to receive the law to take with them and live by in the Promised Land.

When it was clear that the former Egyptian slaves were not up to the task, they were condemned to wander for forty years in the wilderness so that a new generation would arise, enter the land, and build the nation.

Let's recall that the law they received was about family (honor your parents), about property and ownership (thou shalt not steal), and about being concerned about building your own and not what your neighbor has (thou shalt not covet).

Rather than seeking redemption through this law, post-Civil Rights movement black leaders sought redemption in politics. The welfare state, entitlements, transfer payments, and the politics of differences and envy. Should we be surprised by the result?

The New York Times recently reported that from 2004 to 2008, the political and charitable arms of the Congressional Black Caucus raised more than $55 million from corporations and unions. According to the Times, most of these funds were "spent on elaborate conventions a headquarters building, golf outings, and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort."

More was spent on the caterer for the Caucus's Foundation annual dinner - $700,000  than it gave out in scholarships.

It's now over forty years since the Civil Right movement. Enough wandering in the wilderness.

It's time for a new generation of black Americans to step forward. A generation to turn to the truths that will rebuild black lives, black families, and lead blacks to the freedom that Dr. King and all blacks have dreamed about.

A bold Republican agenda would aim to unite our deeply divided nation by reaching into black and Latino communities to show that ownership and personal responsibility -- not the welfare state -- is the key to the American dream

"Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said that his group is strongly supportive of the type of legislation proposed by Sen. (Michelle) McManus. Glenn also supported a recent proposal by Rep. Paul Scott, R-Blanc, another Republican candidate for Secretary of State, to prohibit transgendered people from changing their gender on their drivers licenses. 'If candidates for public (office) are trying to prove that one is more pro-family than the other, then that's good,' Glenn said. 'We certainly appreciate the actions of both Rep. Scott and Sen. McManus.'"

--------------------------------------

MICHIGAN MESSENGER

Lansing, Michigan

February 22, 2010

McManus pushes to end "no fault" divorce

Experts say divorce would become uglier, not less common

By Eartha Jane Melzer

State Senator Michelle McManus (R-Lake Leelanau), a candidate for Michigan Secretary of State, has introduced legislation that would make it harder for people to get divorced.

McManus is the sole sponsor of SB 1127 which would eliminate 'no fault divorce' for couples with children or where one member does not consent to the divorce.

Since 1972 Michigan's "no fault" divorce law has required only that one spouse say "there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved."

Under the McManus bill those seeking divorce would be required to allege specific problems such as adultery, physical abuse, imprisonment, physical incompetence at time of marriage, or that a spouse had sex with an animal or dead human body.

The person accused of wrongdoing in the marriage would then have a chance to agree to the charges or deny them and a court would make a determination as to their validity.

Veronica LaDuke, spokeswoman for McManus, said that the Senator decided to introduce the bill because she was asked to do so by Mike McManus (no relation), president of the DC-area based Christian ministry called group Marriage Savers.

In a telephone interview Mike McManus said that simple incompatibility is not a good enough reason for divorce, and that it's wrong for the state to grant divorce when no evidence of abuse has been presented. Making divorces more difficult will reduce the divorce rate, he said, and he emphasized that Michigan should see divorce as a key cause of the state's economic woes.

McManus said that he believes the legislation could cut the divorce rate in half, and that this would have wide ranging positive effects.

McManus is nationally prominent in the field of marriage promotion, and has stirred some controversy.

In 2005 Salon reported that McManus had promoted the Bush Administration's Healthy Marriage Initiative in his syndicated column Ethics & Religion without disclosing that he had been paid by the administration to advance the program.

There are benefits to requiring that a court establish fault in divorce proceedings, he said.

"Forty years ago when this was the law," McManus said, "a man who was having an affair with his secretary would have to ask himself, 'Am I going to pay her alimony or am I going to give up this bimbo?'"

"Now the law prompts people to be irresponsible."

Under the current system, he said, courts are too quick to remove fathers rights in cases where women claim they fear physical violence.

People took their marriage vows in front of God, he said, and the state should support them in keeping the vows.

This is important, he said, because children whose parents are divorced are more likely to be expelled from school, get pregnant, be poor or kill themselves.

Though most people blame the sad state of Michigan's economy on the decline of the auto industry, McManus claims that the prevalence of divorce in Michigan is a major factor.

"Only married people can create new businesses. It takes one couple living under one roof to generate enough income to set off in business on your own."

Plus, he said, because divorced women and their children are more likely to be poor, divorce results in increased need for Medicaid and housing subsidies.

Glenn also supported a recent proposal by Rep. Paul Scott (R-Blanc), another Republican candidate for Secretary of State, to prohibit transgendered people from changing their gender on their drivers licenses.

"If candidates for public are trying to prove that one is more pro-family than the other then that's good," Glenn said. "We certainly appreciate the actions of both Rep. Scott and Sen. McManus."

Family law experts, however, say the legislation will only make divorces harder on families and children because parents will be forced to invent allegations of abuse and mistreatment in order to justify the divorce.

Michael A. Robbins is current President of the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Robbins said that Michigan repealed fault divorces in 1972 because the process created needless hostility, collusion and perjury — people would make up stories of abuse to get out of their marriages.

A return to the old system would result in separation or abandonment in cases where a judge did not find fault and did not grant a divorce, and this would make it much more difficult to divide property, establish child support or arrange for alimony.

"If they don't grant divorce people are just going to live apart while married," he said, "and they are going to have children with other people while they are living apart, and they are going to have new problems that the system is not going to be able to help them with."

Robbins also said that the reinstitution of ''fault'' divorces will not give any more bargaining power to the innocent spouse than they already have because under the current law the court can still consider ''fault'' when it comes to division of property, an award of alimony, and a determination of custody.

Robbins disagrees that divorce is a cause of the bad economy; he says it's the other way around, financial problems and unemployment are putting a strain on marriages.

The bottom line, he said, is that people who want to get a divorce are going to get a divorce.

"You cant legislate morality and you can't force people to stay together if they don't want to stay together."

Henry Gornbein, a family law attorney since 1968, and former chairperson of the Family Law Council of the State Bar of Michigan, agrees.

Gornbein says the McManus legislation "would be an unmitigated disaster."

"If one party wants out there is a breakdown," he said.

"My understanding of the legislation is that unless there is some egregious situation you can't get a divorce and if one person wants a divorce and the other does not there is no divorce," Gornbein said. "I guess the sponsors believe that that is going to slow down the divorce rate but I think that people are going to get divorced whether there is fault or no fault."

"I don't think it is going to accomplish anything and I don't think it is going to pass," he said. "Politicians are pandering during an election year."

Gary Glenn, AFA-Michigan. Gary will be giving an in-depth presentation about his personal experiences as Director of the Right-to-Work campaign in Idaho in the 1980's, what the landscape for RTW looks like in Michigan, why it is needed and how it can be accomplished.

Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico. Gary is a staunch Constitutional Conservative who recently launched "Our America" a group that aims to draw attention to the principles of limited government at home and non-intervention abroad. He has been mentioned as a potential presidential contender for 2012.

If you believe government is too big and intrusive, if you believe government taxes and regulates too much, then Center Right is where you need to be. Each month we will:

Discuss bills before the legislature that need to be defeated because they grow government, or supported because they put limits on government.

Hear from local elected officials or activists who are keeping watch on the growth of government at the city, township and county level.

Listen to and ask questions of candidates for office who are running as limited-government conservatives.

Network with local and state organizations like Mackinac Center, Americans for Prosperity, Education Action Group, MI-FairTax, and local Tea Party Organizations.

Strategize on how to be effective at protecting our liberties.

You are welcome to bring any issues to the meeting you believe are appropriate. Please let me know if you would like to make a presentation. You will be given 5 minutes to speak, and answer questions. Please bring handouts that explain your issue in detail. Typical attendance is around 50.

If you would like to present, or if you have any questions, please contact me. I hope to see you there!

The Federal vs. the State Governments

In recent years, the federal government has grown at a rapid rate, intruding into many areas that formerly were the sole domain of the states (e.g., education, transportation, health care, energy policy, etc.). Significantly, the Founding Fathers took great care to place limitations around federal powers and to preserve state and local powers. As Thomas Jefferson clearly explained:

The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the states all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other states....Can any good be effected by taking from the states the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the general [federal] authority?...Such an intention was impossible and...[would] break up the foundations of the Union.... I believe the states can best govern our home concerns, and the general [federal] government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore...never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market.

Given the Framers' clear vision of a small and limited federal government, how did it become so large and all-encompassing? The first reason had been foreseen by Founding Father Samuel Adams ("The Father of the American Revolution"), who cautioned:

If the liberties of America are ever completely ruined...it will in all probability be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most destructive tendency for the sake of present ease.

The first step in losing control of the federal government was that it became easier and more convenient to "acquiesce" (i.e., give in) and let the federal government begin doing things never before permitted. The federal government then felt emboldened to enter additional areas  or to use a description provided by Thomas Jefferson, it began "working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

This is the current situation, and citizens do not like it:

64% of Americans believe that government is too big (6% believe it is too small, and only 25% believe that it is "the right size"), and only 35% believe that the government is operating in line with the U. S. Constitution.

When asked to identify the biggest threat to the future of the country, 55% identified big government, 32% big business, and 10% big labor.

70% of Americans favor "smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes" rather than "a more active government with more services and higher taxes."

Some leaders (including both candidates and elected officials) are now advocating state nullification as a constitutional solution  that a state has the right to declare a federal law unconstitutional, thereby nullifying that law. State nullification certainly sounds like a silver bullet  a proverbial wooden stake that can be driven through the heart of what many see as a growing federal monster.

But did the Founding Fathers  the Framers of our government  give states the constitutional power to nullify federal laws? Several elected officials have asked us that very question, and it is certainly one that is within our purview of research. After all, WallBuilders exists to "present Americans forgotten heroes and history, with an emphasis on our religious, moral, and constitutional heritage."

We just finished the historical analysis of state nullification and have returned the finished report to those elected officials. I must confess that not only was it an interesting project but I was also surprised by the results; frankly, I was amazed at how often state nullification appeared throughout the decades.

If you are interested in learning more about this piece of American history that directly relates to public policies currently being advocated, you can read or download the report. Enjoy!

Don't forget to listen to WallBuilders' daily radio program, WallBuilders Live!, the intersection of faith and culture, or you can download the daily podcast. Visit http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/ for more information.

This email was sent to rgdunn@veionline.com, by David Barton PO Box 397 Aledo, TX 76008 United States

If you do not wish to receive future e-mail from David Barton, please click here

We just finished the historical analysis of state nullification and have returned the finished report to those elected officials. I must confess that not only was it an interesting project but I was also surprised by the results; frankly, I was amazed at how often state nullification appeared throughout the decades.

The attacks against The Church (The Body of Christ) did not start with Obama (although of course increased under his Administration) but have been an unrelenting force in earnest in our culture for more than half a century.

In analysis we find that the Ivy League Schools in their beginning were centers of Christianity but slowly became centers of secularism and anti-Christianity.

Did not happened by accident but by the intervention of Marxists in our country that in 1934 brought Communists/Marxists from Frankfurt Germany.

Their poison eventually percolated all the way to kindergarten level where we find today that many of our very young are taught that "homosexualism is good".

The forces that want to bring a New World Order realized long ago that they have to destroy our Christian and moral character to be able to conquer us and form the New World Government.

Unless we understand the nature of evil we are at a disadvantage when we try to fight it as we must.

The Kosher Gourmet by Linda Gassenheimer:: New Orleans Chef Paul Prudhomme tells home cooks to bronze not blacken fish. Try the technique out with this recipe for Cajun-Bronzed talapia and Rice and Spinach Pilaf

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |One of the major differences between the right and the left concerns the question of authority: To whom do we owe obedience and who is the ultimate moral authority?

For the right, the primary moral authority is G-d (or, for secular conservatives, Judeo-Christian values), followed by parents. Of course, government must also play a role, but it is ultimately accountable to G-d and it should do nothing to undermine parental authority.

For the left, the state and its government are the supreme authorities, while parental and divine authority are seen as impediments to state authority.

Let's begin with G-d.

From Karl Marx — "man is G-d;" "religion is the opiate of the people" — to today's left in America and elsewhere, G-d and G-d-based religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity (Islam, too, but in the West, Islam has played little role) have been the primary obstacles to leftist victory.

That is why the further left a government or an ideology, the more it has opposed religion. The first targets of Lenin and Stalin were churches, synagogues and clergy. At the modern Western university, the epicenter of leftist ideology, the same has held true. A clear, if unstated, goal of modern liberal arts education is that as few college graduates as possible hold values rooted in traditional Judaism or Christianity.

This also explains the left's passion about maintaining and furthering secularism — under the banner of "separation of church and state." Anything — any value, any idea, any person — rooted in Judeo-Christian values must be confined to as narrow a place in society as possible.

That is largely why there is such intense leftist opposition to the pro-life position. Since most opposition to abortion (when the mother's life is not threatened) emanates from religious values, "pro-life" means that transcendent values are authoritative, not a woman's wishes.

It is the major reason for left-wing loathing of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research: That opposition usually emanates from religious sources and therefore places Judeo-Christian values higher than science's capabilities.

It explains leftist opposition to even mentioning G-d in public schools — students must graduate as secular as possible.

It is not secularism that animates those positions; it is leftism.

One proof is that there are many secular people who are not on the left. Prominent examples include Wall Street Journal editorial and opinion page writers and the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer.

Take, for example, Krauthammer's position on embryonic stem cell research. Though Krauthammer is secular, he opposed creating human embryos for the sake of stem cell research — a position all the more noteworthy in light of his own paralysis as a result of a spinal cord injury incurred as a young man.

Another proof that it is leftism, not secularism, that animates the left's attacks on Judeo-Christian public expressions and influence on public policy is that when left-wing positions are enunciated by religious spokesmen, the left supports them. Clergy that are anti-war, "green" or for same-sex marriage, for example, are celebrated by the left.

Many left-wing Jews and Christians believe in G-d. But the G-d that most leftists believe in is the same in name, not in characteristics. The G-d left-wing believers affirm is largely a non-judging G-d, a loving friend in heaven (or increasingly likely, in nature). He is found in trees much more than in moral demands.

The second most powerful obstacle to the state and government assuming primary authority is parents.

It was no meaningless phrase when baby boomers on the left declared, "Never trust anyone over 30." Who was over 30? First and foremost, their parents.

As with religion, the further left the state or ideology, the more it seeks to undermine parental authority. In the Soviet Union, Komsomol, the Soviet Youth League substituted for parents. Mao, too, did what he could to destroy the family's authority. Although no way comparable to Stalin or Mao, the American and European left also seek to undermine parental authority.

The battle over parental notification in the case of abortion is primarily about parental authority.

The battle over sex education in schools is largely about that, too — who gets to teach youth about sexuality and homosexuality? Parents or schools (i.e., the state)?

The battle over school vouchers is in large measure also a battle over governmental authority versus parental authority. Who gets to choose where one's child attends school — the state or the parent? The battle over who gets to actually educate our children has already been lost to the state in the vast majority of cases. It is why the left is so uncomfortable with home schooling — parents, not the state, get to teach children.

As the late James O. Freedman, former president of Dartmouth University, said in a commencement address in 2002, the purpose of a college education is "to question your father's values."

Just as the left has substituted the authority of the state for the authority of G-d, it has substituted the authority of the state for that of parents. And just as G-d has been reduced to a non-judging, non-disciplining pal, so, too, the left wants parents to become non-judging, non-disciplining pals of their children.

In a nutshell, the left wants to have ever-expanding authority over people's lives through ever-expanding governmental powers. It does so because it regards itself as more enlightened than others. Others are either enemies (the right) or unenlightened masses. It is elected by demonizing its enemies and doling out money and jobs to the masses.

JWR contributor Dennis Prager hosts a national daily radio show based in Los Angeles. Click here to comment on this column.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.